Also speaking

It's because, quite frankly, from the warden's perspective, I'm the first-level grievance. So for my office, it does save considerable time, because I'm not reviewing the first-level grievance procedures from there on out.

The plan would be a key part of it in terms of how we would limit the moving on of this process, or what the inmate may have to demonstrate in terms of there being warrant and merit to what they're bringing forward.

I guess, for me, it would definitely assist in terms of the first-level grievance, which is my level, in that it wouldn't move on. Quite frankly, there are genuine first-level grievances submitted at the site level that become untimely owing to some of the more frivolous complaints submitted that move on to the grievance.

So I do feel that at the grievance level, from the first level—which is mine—on, it would be of benefit. I can't speak to, until we roll it out, if it rolls out, what the plan we're referring to would look like in terms of what the actual realized benefit would be. Again, I don't have enough information.

You have the power now to designate someone a multiple complainant. What powers do you have under that designation?

The way I understand it is that if somebody's designated a multiple complainant, you can't ignore the complaint but you can sort of put it aside if you feel you don't have the resources to deal with it in a timely manner. Is that true? Is that how it works?

I have not used that process. I've been part of a management team that has used that process in terms of multiple-griever status.

For me, it relates to, yes, we can limit them to, I think, two a month. It's a quantitative measure. It's statistical in nature. It actually doesn't speak to the nature of the grievance or the complaint; it just speaks to the number of grievances and complaints that are being put forward.

You know, I don't think we're solving anything with the current policy. What it's doing is...I'm basically saying to the inmate, “You can continue to submit ten grievances a month. I will in essence answer two a month. But I have a responsibility to answer all of the grievances submitted in time; I'm just setting a timeframe whereby you will only get two responses back”—

It could if we saw the nature of the complaint and reviewed it. It doesn't apply, I can say, to KP's current three that we're referring to. You know, it certainly could be a heads-up if we were to receive a complaint or a grievance that seemed out of the usual or....

I can tell you, as the warden, that oftentimes I'll get inmate requests that certainly flag for me that there's some concern here with this individual. It will be referred to psychology.

But in my experience at Kingston Pen, which has been about 13 years, I can say that I certainly haven't seen it used as a mechanism. It's not something we would turn a blind eye to, obviously, if there was a concern suggested in the grievance or the complaint, but it's certainly not something we've come across on a routine basis, in my experience.

Again, while I am not responsible for developing national policy, I certainly have given it some thought. I know I keep referencing, and I have referenced, the idea of the motivation-based intervention strategies as well as correctional programs in terms of cognitive thinking skills and problem solving. So their actual correctional plan might involve participation or active participation to address the dynamic needs. The hope would be that it would remedy and also be part of the plan, so that if they followed it, then at the six-month review we'd look at that as a positive to say, “Okay, you've held up your end of this plan, so I'm absolutely willing in good faith to re-review.”

Again, I certainly don't speak on behalf of the commissioner or the policy personnel at NHQ, but I have given it some thought. I do think there are certain mechanisms we could absolutely use that would be very positive in that regard.